Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-87295-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:30:10 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: samuel.holland@sifive.com, ajones@ventanamicro.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alex@ghiti.fr,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, sorear@fastmail.com,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -fixes v4 2/3] riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the
 [ms]envcfg CSR
Message-ID: <20240229-establish-itinerary-5d08f6c3ee43@spud>
References: <20240228-goldsmith-shrine-97fc4610e0bc@spud>
 <mhng-94e8034f-eda3-45df-bcf0-1bd5bd9cb869@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ch+3PeRyra/9QFRf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <mhng-94e8034f-eda3-45df-bcf0-1bd5bd9cb869@palmer-ri-x1c9a>


--ch+3PeRyra/9QFRf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:23:39AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 02:12:14 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > > The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
> > > ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
> > > other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particu=
lar
> > > version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
> > > prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
> > > result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determi=
ne
> > > if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
> > > extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
> > > CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
> > > absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
> > > address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
> > >=20
> > > Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence =
of
> > > the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
> > > wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg I=
SA
> > > extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
> > > the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least =
one
> > > of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
> >=20
> > > This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
> > > string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
> > > standard extension.
> >=20
> > NGL, every time I look at the superset stuff I question whether or not
> > it is a good implementation, but it is nice to see that it at least
> > makes the creation of quasi-extension flags like this straightforward.
>=20
> We can always add it to the DT list as a proper extension, but I think for
> this sort of stuff it's good enough for now

Perhaps good enough forever. I was not advocating for adding it as a
permitted DT property - I was just saying that I didn't the complexity
that you mention below, but I was pleasantly surprised that the stuff
?Evan? and I came up with allows for this kind of inferred "extension"
without any changes.

> -- we've already got a bunch of
> complexity for the proper ISA-defined extension dependencies, so it's not
> like we could really get away from it entirely.

--ch+3PeRyra/9QFRf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZeDNMgAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0phyAPkBd+aPNH1/saAdNEh6ILJZUG6mCtcyhkUgdb1752vlrAD/RIO8+81FcJN+
11exmk/RMWj7ZuE4xehnYEvsq43w5w4=
=t2I+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ch+3PeRyra/9QFRf--